Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: versions are immutable, results may include llmContext guidance that should be followed, and get_workflow is the expected follow-up for step details. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and scope, and the second provides a concrete follow-up tool and notes the llmContext behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, 100% schema description coverage, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior. The description fills the remaining gaps by noting immutability, the follow-up get_workflow action, and the llmContext instruction. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema with meaningful descriptions. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; 'integer deploy numbers with optional names' describes the result contents rather than input semantics. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List a workflow's deployed (immutable) versions,' and clarifies the result shape as 'integer deploy numbers with optional names.' It also distinguishes itself from get_workflow by explicitly naming that tool for fetching steps, and the resource scope separates it from list_workflows and list_workflow_runs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete routing guidance by telling the agent to use get_workflow for fetching a version's steps. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_workflows or list_workflow_runs, but the strong resource focus makes the intended use clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.